The limits of the discretion of the investigating judge when considering complaints against decisions, actions or inaction of the investigator, inquirer or prosecutor within the framework of the pre-trial investigation

In the article, the author examines the concept of discretion (discretion) of an investigating judge and the limits of its application when considering complaints about decisions, actions or inaction of an investigator, inquirer or prosecutor in accordance with Article 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. Scientific approaches to the definition of discretionary powers are studied, while the author draws attention to the fact that the limits of this discretion are not clearly fixed in the legislation. In turn, all this creates corresponding difficulties in its practical application. The author emphasizes that the discretion of an investigating judge is an important tool for implementing judicial control, but its limits remain the subject of debate due to the lack of uniform criteria for law enforcement. During the analysis of judicial practice, the author identified different approaches to understanding the limits of discretion and their general impact on ensuring the rights of participants in the criminal process. In particular, the author considers it necessary to highlight the opinions of both investigating judges themselves and practicing lawyers regarding the possibilities and limitations of the discretion of an investigating judge and its application. It is noted that the presence of significant variability in law enforcement leads to difficulties in ensuring legal certainty. Also, significant attention is required to the problems that arise due to the subjective approach of judges to the assessment of procedural decisions of pre-trial investigation bodies, which may complicate judicial control. In the study, the author highlights the legal positions of the Supreme Court regarding the role of the investigating judge, which are referred to by practicing lawyers. Such practice is quite controversial and significantly affects the definition of the limits of the discretion of the investigating judge. All this emphasizes the complexity of the exercise of discretionary powers by a judge and raises questions about limiting judicial intervention in procedural decisions of pre-trial investigation bodies, which may have various consequences for the rights of participants in the criminal process. From the point of view of a lawyer, logical questions are further raised regarding the role of the investigating judge. The conclusion notes that the issue of the limits of the discretion of the investigating judge is multifaceted and subjective, and therefore it requires further understanding and improvement of regulatory and legal regulation in order to ensure a balance between the efficiency of the pre-trial investigation and compliance with the rights of participants in the criminal process.